No State vs Minarchism

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Osan, thanks for taking up the torch... but like apparently everyone else, I'm not up to participating in another minarchist circle-jerk when they can just open up one of a hundred threads in the last year and get unanswered rebuttals to every point brought up here.

LOL

I've already addressed the moral underpinnings of minarchism - namely, it is the closest possible approximation to the libertarian moral ideal (anarchism is closer to the ideal but isn't possible).

Very simple.

As I've said, pretending that minarchism is moral requires one to accept that it is moral to sacrifice equality of rights (since people within government have the right to rob others but not everyone else possesses that right) or accept robbery as moral & that everyone should be freely allowed to engage in it to ensure equality of rights.

Nonetheless, you can justify your minarchist morality (so long as you can, I couldn't after a certain point but good luck to you).

I believe there is a demand for freedom (as there is a demand for coercion), & as the demand for freedom increases (& it will since people generally do want more freedom but unfortunately, often at the cost of other people's freedom, which in turn creates a demand for coercion), over time, as selling freedom becomes more & more profitable, there will be more & more sellers, & the competition will drive down the price, making freedom more accessible to more & more people.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

As I've said, pretending that minarchism is moral requires one to accept that it is moral to sacrifice equality of rights (since people within government have the right to rob others but not everyone else possesses that right) or accept robbery as moral & that everyone should be freely allowed to engage in it to ensure equality of rights.

Ethics is about how we make choices. Your language implies that you think minarchists are choosing to have the state. But this is not the case. I'm no more choosing to have the state than I am choosing to be mortal, or choosing the time the sun rises, or choosing to not be able to breath under water. These things are out of my control. I cannot be immortal, I cannot make the sun rise at a certain time, I cannot breath under water - I cannot not have a state. We cannot choose to have a state or not, we can only choose what kind of state we shall have. And minarchists, obviously, want a minimal one.

Anarcho-capitalism is akin to an ethics which insists that we should be able to breath underwater, with minarchists playing the role of the guy who says "well, that's impossible, so how about we go for the next best option, maybe a snorkel?", only to be called a sell-out to the cause of underwater breathing. ....It's absurd.

P.S. Let me ask you a question: If given the choice, would you have a preference between (for instance) Stalin-era communism and Jefferson-era American government? Both involve aggression (to very different degrees of course). So, if you do have a preference between the two, does that mean that you are endorsing aggression? I would say no, you are endorsing less aggression over more aggression, in a situation where those are the only choices. What do you say?

I believe there is a demand for freedom (as there is a demand for coercion), & as the demand for freedom increases (& it will since people generally do want more freedom but unfortunately, often at the cost of other people's freedom, which in turn creates a demand for coercion), over time, as selling freedom becomes more & more profitable, there will be more & more sellers, & the competition will drive down the price, making freedom more accessible to more & more people.

Could you elaborate? Because it kind of sounds like you're waiting for the "New Libertarian Man" to arise...

 

[HVACTech]

The Ninth Amendment is the truer utility of the Constitution. The Tenth is an abomination in diametric harness of everything for which the Ninth stands. The Tenth is the destroyer of human freedom in America.

whoa dude, so even the anti-federalists are not pure enough for you huh.

I wonder what AF might think about that?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Osan, thanks for taking up the torch... but like apparently everyone else, I'm not up to participating in another minarchist circle-jerk when they can just open up one of a hundred threads in the last year and get unanswered rebuttals to every point brought up here.

Forgive my ignorance.

Would you point me to one of these hundred threads where it is explained why security firms cannot cartelize?

 

[HVACTech]

...in reality there are no such things as "states" nor "fedgov". These are nothing more than mental constructs that pave the ways for scripts according to which some people expect others to act. This is a highly problematic way of carrying on the business of living.

dude, I clicked my heels THREE times, spun around and you know what? they were still there!
(if you pay close attention, there are even signs when you cross from one "mental construct" to another! no shit!)
meanwhile, back at the farm...



NEVER bullshit a Bullshitter.

 

[osan]

NEVER bullshit a Bullshitter.

I'm not bullshitting anyone.

 

[HVACTech]

I'm not bullshitting anyone.

are you asking me Sir. if the artificial human construct of "borders" exist?

or stating that they are artificial?

who the fuck do you think you are talking to?

do I need to remind you, that you attacked me first?

Cop out, complete and utter. The Constitution may have been the best they could squeeze out upon the throne of political philosophizing in 1789, but it is not the best that can be done today. I have heard this argument before... it was left vague because there are no definite answers for all times... BULLSHIT. The basic principles of human freedom are immutable.

BULLSHIT. it was NOT for them to decide in the first place.

 

[osan]

are you asking me Sir. if the artificial human construct of "borders" exist?

I don't recall having asked you anything. I've made no statements concerning "borders". Is this some sort of joke?

who the fuck do you think you are talking to?

do I need to remind you, that you attacked me first?



BULLSHIT. it was NOT for them to decide in the first place.

You respond as someone with a serious chemical abuse issue. I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Attack" you? Surely you jest. I don't attack anyone, certainly not with words. Were it my intention to attack you, I would find where you lived and put the smack upon you in no uncertain terms. Since I have no reason to do such a thing, your perception of my having attacked you must be based upon something for which perhaps you are in need of psychiatric care. Nowhere was I referring to YOU personally in my post. Therefore, either you lack good reading comprehension or have psych issues. You certainly do not have good communication habits, judging by this response and the fact that you think -rep to me will make any difference whatsoever in my life.

You have chosen to attempt to pick a fight for no rational reason whatsoever and with the wrong human being.

You have a good day.

 

[HVACTech]

I don't recall having asked you anything. I've made no statements concerning "borders". Is this some sort of joke?



You respond as someone with a serious chemical abuse issue. I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Attack" you? Surely you jest. I don't attack anyone, certainly not with words. Were it my intention to attack you, I would find where you lived and put the smack upon you in no uncertain terms. Since I have no reason to do such a thing, your perception of my having attacked you must be based upon something for which perhaps you are in need of psychiatric care. Nowhere was I referring to YOU personally in my post. Therefore, either you lack good reading comprehension or have psych issues. You certainly do not have good communication habits, judging by this response and the fact that you think -rep to me will make any difference whatsoever in my life.

You have chosen to attempt to pick a fight for no rational reason whatsoever and with the wrong human being.

You have a good day.

it twas an abstract discussion about political philosophy.

but NOT to worry!
I am over 6'3" about 185 and you know where I live!




The words of Osan..

Were it my intention to attack you, I would find where you lived and put the smack upon you in no uncertain terms

about "borders" those are what determines if a "State" exists or not.

...in reality there are no such things as "states" nor "fedgov". These are nothing more than mental constructs that pave the ways for scripts according to which some people expect others to act. This is a highly problematic way of carrying on the business of living.

did I write that too fast for your reading comprehension?

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

P.S. Let me ask you a question: If given the choice, would you have a preference between (for instance) Stalin-era communism and Jefferson-era American government? Both involve aggression (to very different degrees of course). So, if you do have a preference between the two, does that mean that you are endorsing aggression? I would say no, you are endorsing less aggression over more aggression, in a situation where those are the only choices. What do you say?

The assumption that no better choices can be available is just that, an assumption.

But even if we pretend that those are the only two options available, living under a minarchy due to lack of choice & supporting the immorality of minarchism are two different things. Just look at us right now, living under a socialist regime; living under it in itself isn't immoral if that's the best choice available BUT justifying such a regime would be immoral & pretending that it's the best & the most moral choice available to us would mean supporting immorality; & bear in mind, many liberals do pretend that it is the best choice available, some of them propose even more socialism (or even communism) as the best choice available, based on utility rather than morality.

Could you elaborate? Because it kind of sounds like you're waiting for the "New Libertarian Man" to arise...

Statists rely on men & those who understand the market processes rely on the markets.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The assumption that no better choices can be available is just that, an assumption.

No, it is the conclusion of a sound argument. But you stopped responding to the argument a few posts back.

Paul or Nothing II: "I would have liked to address some of the points you have raised but I noticed that you haven't touched upon the moral aspect; in fact, you have selectively chosen not to reply to the parts of my post that deal with morality."

I've now answered your questions about minarchist morality.

You should now answer those points of mine that you neglected.

But even if we pretend that those are the only two options available, living under a minarchy due to lack of choice & supporting the immorality of minarchism are two different things. Just look at us right now, living under a socialist regime; living under it in itself isn't immoral if that's the best choice available BUT justifying such a regime would be immoral & pretending that it's the best & the most moral choice available to us would mean supporting immorality;

What if the only alternative to the status quo were Stalinism?

Would it be immoral to support the status quo for the purpose of averting Stalinism?

If not, then why is it immoral to support minarchy for the purpose of averting worse forms of government?

Statists rely on men & those who understand the market processes rely on the markets.

Whether the markets are free depends on the character of men. There is no deity guaranteeing that market participants refrain from violence against one another.

Again, anarchists are taking free markets as a given. They aren't.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You should now answer those points of mine that you neglected.

I don't really think it's worth the trouble because if you can't accept the logic behind the moral superiority of AnCap then I doubt you'll accept any of my other logical pro-AnCap arguments because it just signals a denial-mode to me. Again, I know because I've been there, & I know that nobody could have told me anything that would have convinced me at the time because I guess I was just not ready. And, I think it's a leap that a person has to make on his/her own, it has to happen organically.

Again, anarchists are taking free markets as a given. They aren't.

Even under the most authoritarian governments markets not only have worked but overthrew every obstacle put in their way, eventually leading to devastation of such regimes. Markets don't need to be free in order to work, they ALWAYS work, it's just that there's minimal carnage when they are allowed to work freely.

You seem to have a belief that the markets are this tiny little kitten that needs to be coddled & kept in cotton wool, away from force & all that but that's the liberal caricature of the markets for garnering support for more regulations & control but those who understand markets realize that markets are a brutal force of nature & the best thing to do is to stay out its way.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't really think it's worth the trouble because if you can't accept the logic behind the moral superiority of AnCap...

Minarchists think that anarchy will result in the emergence of a type of state worse than a minarchist state.

If that view is correct, then the minarchist position is ethically justified (choosing the lesser of two evils is not unethical***).

The debate here should be over whether that prediction (about how anarchy will work) is correct.

If you want to have that debate, you should respond to my post that you've been ignoring.

***If you disagree, then you must think it unethical to prefer the status quo to Stalinism, for instance, which is absurd.

Even under the most authoritarian governments markets not only have worked but overthrew every obstacle put in their way, eventually leading to devastation of such regimes. Markets don't need to be free in order to work, they ALWAYS work, it's just that there's minimal carnage when they are allowed to work freely.

You seem to have a belief that the markets are this tiny little kitten that needs to be coddled & kept in cotton wool, away from force & all that but that's the liberal caricature of the markets for garnering support for more regulations & control but those who understand markets realize that markets are a brutal force of nature & the best thing to do is to stay out its way.

If you're saying that market forces inevitably cause the state to collapse and be superseded by anarcho-capitalism,

(a) how?

and (b) why has this never once happened in all of human history?

 

[HVACTech]

The Framers saw what they were able in those days. I cannot presume to know their minds, their vision, but only the product of their efforts. It was perhaps a good attempt, given whence they were bred as political beings. They were raised in the world of blatant empire as serfs. It is only understandable that their minds might wander only so far from the farm. But we now have well over 200 years of additional empirical experience and may see with better informed eyes.

let me see if I got this right. "but only the product of their efforts" efforts at what?
"they were bred as political beings". thats interesting. any proof?

"as serfs". got it, the founders were "serfs".

"that their minds might wander only so far from the farm" yep, just a bunch of redneck farmboys..

what I was describing, was the architectural framework. of the founders efforts.

other than to display your complete and utter DISGUST with both the founders as well as the Constitution.
did you have a point to make about no state Vs MinArchism?

Perhaps according to your definitions, but you never made those clear.

those WERE my definitions azzhat.

what you lack, is the mental capacity to refute them.

 

[HVACTech]

I'm not bullshitting anyone.

did you go to the Archie Bunker school of writing?

The Framers saw what they were able in those days. I cannot presume to know their minds, their vision, but only the product of their efforts. It was perhaps a good attempt, given whence they were bred as political beings.

who BRED them for this purpose?

inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Minarchists think that anarchy will result in the emergence of a type of state worse than a minarchist state.

"Think".

Yes, liberals too THINK that the free markets can't facilitate prosperous societies, & that's why they PRETEND that the socialist-robbery is moral.

Minarchists THINK that AnCap can't facilitate prosperous societies, & that's why they PRETEND that the minarchist-robbery is moral (well, until minarchists become AnCaps, that is )

Things like equality of rights & trying to eliminate robbery should be a given; these kind of things shouldn't depend on whether one believes free market & AnCap can work or not.

If that view is correct, then the minarchist position is ethically justified (choosing the lesser of two evils is not unethical***).

I've already made a clear distinction between the two but let me give it another shot:

(a) choosing the lesser evil due to limited choices (while recognizing its immorality)
(b) pretending that the lesser evil isn't immoral at all & supporting it

(a) & (b) are DIFFERENT things.
(a) doesn't entail supporting immorality.
(b) DOES entail supporting immorality.

If you're saying that

I'm saying that your repeated assertion that "markets without force" are a prerequisite to AnCap is incorrect.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

did you go to the Archie Bunker school of writing?



who BRED them for this purpose?

inquiring minds want to know!

Dude, no one has any idea what you are talking about. That's why most of us don't respond to you. And it's not because of the soundness of your positions... it's because you're barely comprehensible, not to mention a boor, and apparently mentally unstable given your bizarre accusations of being attacked, etc. You remind me of a less articulate Travlyr.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm just giving you a head's up. If you want to engage in conversation here, drop the shtick.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This wanders off the farm, methinks. "Rudimentary"? I cannot divine the tone - is it bad? Good? Inferior? "Crudely"? Such terms seem to imply inferiority - a less-than status. Was that your intention?

No, of course not. I'm speaking of the simple society versus the complexity of bureaucracy. My relatives live in the former. I've seen firsthand how some of their ways are infinitely better than the ways of bureaucracy.

I mostly agree with your view about consequences. People are ultimately free to perform any action, but there are consequences. There are earthly consequences and consequences beyond. Some would argue that one is not really free because they are constrained by the higher consequences. That's been discussed in the religion forum.

I was also being a little wry when discussing theory. Yes, theory is the framework for application, but there comes a point when you have to stop pontificating and take action. Americans read a lot of books, but sometimes have no common sense. There are countless TV shows and books on the most fundamental activities, such as eating and exercise. Americans are so book smart, but they need a cooking show guru or "personal trainer" to show them how to eat or exercise. If you can't perform life's most basic functions, then you're going to have problems. It becomes very problematic when people commission the government to do it. Examples are the first lady's diet campaign or the president's council on physical fitness.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No libertarian who understands anarcho-capitalism would deny that it would be an ideal form of social organization if it worked as described.

Minarchists, such as myself, object to it only on the grounds that it won't work as described.

Why not?

(In a Nutshell) Anarchists assume that security firms would compete with one another peacefully in a free market environment; i.e. they would not violate the NAP. But there's no basis for this assumption. If a firm or combination of firms (cartel) is capable of forcing its competitors out of business and/or forcing people to pay for its services, it will do so, because that is in its own rational-self interest - and at that point it is a state in all but name. /anarchy

This is the only objection statists can mount anymore and it is one of hypocrisy which means it is not a real, legitimate objection. It has already been pointed out why it is a hypocritical argument because no limited government has ever remained limited. When confronted with this historical fact, let me repeat, a historical fact the solution statists propose is repeat history. Then they say well ... it will work this time if the people can keep it. It will work this time if people are eternally vigilant. All the same crapola that has been said before.

To recap:

It is a historical fact no limited government has ever remained limited and your opinion is no free market PDA will remain non-aggressive? Yes.
But you are saying limited government can work this time if people are eternally vigilant and can keep it? Yes.
And you are saying limited government can only work for a moral and enlightened people? Yes.

So here is where the anarchist takes it to another level. The anarchist says ok if it takes faith, eternal vigilance, a moral, and enlightened people to make limited government work does it not take the same exact things to make free market anarchy work? (Clicking light bulb)

So why shoot for second best. Is not free market anarchy a higher bar as you have already acknowledged it to be? But, but, but, but, but ... (sigh)

What is the difference between asking a people to exercise faith and eternal vigilance demanding limited government when they can have free market anarchy by demanding free market competition?

There is no difference in terms of faith, eternal vigilance, a moral, or enlightened people except that in one scenario people demand limited government and in the other they demand free market competition.

Then the statist says well it will take too much education to go from where we are now to free market anarchy. Why the f^#$ do you people think anarchists support Ron Paul? Why do anarchists say limited government would be an improvement over what we have now? Because anarchists are not stupid and know things only happen incrementally until there are major revolutions in the thinking of people. That is why even Rothbard helped start the libertarian party but despite any electoral or political activism Rothbard would never advocate compromising the libertarian message for one mere electoral victory. The difference is anarchists set the goal in an entirely different place than minarchists which seems to drive the minarchists nuts.

Yes, cartels don't work in a free market, they can only be maintained by force.

But that's my point - what's to stop the security firms from forming a cartel and maintaining it by force?

Anarchists just assume they won't, even though they will have the means (they are in the business of using force - being security firms), and its obviously profitable for them to do so.



It may seem strange that I'm criticizing anarchism because it will lead to the re-emergence of the state, while myself proposing that we keep the state.

Not only is it strange to criticize anarchism because it will lead to the re-emergence of the state, while yourself proposing you can keep the state ... it is insanity of repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Hell even if anarchists are relying on the same faith and eternal vigilance glue for free markets at least they aren't proposing the same exact thing that has already been unsuccessfully done over and over and over.

It's a dam tragedy we are all born ignorant because if we were all born possessing the sum of human knowledge from the get go we would already have free market anarchy.

RE:

that is a "gotcha" question.

and then you will take the lofty position of consent, YOU did not give your consent.
so, therefore. they had no "right" to pass such legislation. as it would pertain to you


looking at your sidebar, it appears that you do not support the mission statement of this site
you do not engage in activism, you do not contribute financially to the site.
and you do not support Rand.

does that sound about right?

That right there is pretty much why there are no anarchists around here anymore. They have either gotten tired of the bullshit from the electoral voting junkie thought police around here or have been banned by them. But before you posted these gems:

but my efforts thus far are seen as attacks or rejection, (or whatever)
by Anarchists on this site. this puzzles me greatly.

a MinArchist is someone who is willing to fight the fucking statists, and sees them as the enemy.
and An Anarchist is someone who prefers pacifism and endless pontification.

(runs and ducks for cover...incoming!!!)

(((((((sure is quiet in here.)))))))

hey! wait a minute Love!
I was trying to pick a fight with the pure, hard core Anarchists first!

That is all that has ever happened around here. Just because I am using your posts as an example doesn't mean I am picking on you because the same trend can be found in other threads. Statists want to pick fights with anarchists and when they run out of arguments they throw the same bullshit at them you did about this site, its mission statement, etc. As we can see many of those not banned have pretty much said screw this site. And well ... look at the popularity of it/statistics/etc. compared to what it used to be. It has burned because all of that great original content being generated by anarchists which is the heart and soul of any successful web site is now gone. A fitting demise.

RE:

Osan, thanks for taking up the torch... but like apparently everyone else, I'm not up to participating in another minarchist circle-jerk when they can just open up one of a hundred threads in the last year and get unanswered rebuttals to every point brought up here.

lol ... I know your sentiment. I'm not retaking up the torch either, just chimed in the circle jerk for one comment. Conza, our resident human library was awesome anytime one of these threads used to pop up because that dude had a post of great reading links he would link to. I should go through his posts and dig it back up.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Minarchists think that anarchy will result in the emergence of a type of state worse than a minarchist state.

"Think".

Yes, for reasons which I've already explained in some detail - and which you've still not rebutted.

Yes, liberals too THINK that the free markets can't facilitate prosperous societies, & that's why they PRETEND that the socialist-robbery is moral.

Minarchists THINK that AnCap can't facilitate prosperous societies, & that's why they PRETEND that the minarchist-robbery is moral

That analogy presupposes that minarchists are wrong in their prediction of how anarchist societies would work (or not work), which is the very point in contention.

#beggingthequestion

Things like equality of rights & trying to eliminate robbery should be a given; these kind of things shouldn't depend on whether one believes free market & AnCap can work or not.

It sounds like you're saying that one should be an anarcho-capitalist even if one thinks that anarcho-capitalism won't work. Is that right?

If that view is correct, then the minarchist position is ethically justified (choosing the lesser of two evils is not unethical***).

I've already made a clear distinction between the two but let me give it another shot:

(a) choosing the lesser evil due to limited choices (while recognizing its immorality)
(b) pretending that the lesser evil isn't immoral at all & supporting it

(a) & (b) are DIFFERENT things.
(a) doesn't entail supporting immorality.
(b) DOES entail supporting immorality.

I think we're talking past one another.

You think that minarchism is immoral in comparison to the ideal of a purely voluntary society.

...and I completely agree. As I said in my first post in this thread, anarcho-capitalism would be better than minarchy if it worked as described (i.e. if we consider only the ideal and ignore how it might work in practice).

But what I'm saying is that minarchism is moral in comparison to the other real options available to us.

I'm saying that your repeated assertion that "markets without force" are a prerequisite to AnCap is incorrect.

Consider a society where a cartel of security producers use violence to force would-be competitors out of business, and force the people in a given geographical area to pay for their services - can this be called an anarcho-capitalist society?

No, of course not. It would be a state-society. The entire concept of anarcho-capitalism is that security be produced on a free market.

As soon as there is no longer a free market in security (or anything else for that matter), there is no anarcho-capitalism, by definition.